Taxi Driver Online

Yep, that's more or less how I interpret it. So, if you are s/e and your school is with XYZ Cabs, and XYZ Cabs gives you the school run to do, you are now seen to be employed by XYZ Cabs and they get lumbered with paying your tax and NI.

If you personally have the school contract with Midshire County council, then you are self-employed. If YOU sub it out to someone else, you have to pay his tax and NI. I think... [/quote]
How do you interpret the situation regarding an office sending drivers for "normal" work like pick up from ASDA and take home?[/quote]

If the office sends any driver hackney or PH regardless of if that driver owns there vehicle they are now employees, and it doesn't need to be an actual physical office, it could also apply to those that work car to car, I informed quite a few drivers of this new rule today and as usual most buried there heads in the sand[/quote]Correct, it would appear to apply to anyone acting as an intermediary ("the office").

I put the question to my accountant who retired from the Army with a string of letters behind his name proving he's a highly-qualified accountant and he says
"This is the purpose of the proposed changes:
'The purpose of the proposed new rules remains to remove opportunities for the avoidance of tax and Class 1 National Insurance Contributions (NICs) by the use of intermediaries, such as service companies or partnerships, in circumstances where an individual worker would otherwise be an employee of the client or the income would be income from an office held by the worker.'

It is an obvious anti NI and tax avoidance. Such things have been going on since Henry VIII's reign when the Statute of Uses was introduced as a method of ensuring that the King got his fees on inheritances etc. It didn't work either!

If the office sends any driver hackney or PH regardless of if that driver owns there vehicle they are now employees, and it doesn't need to be an actual physical office, it could also apply to those that work car to car, I informed quite a few drivers of this new rule today and as usual most buried there heads in the sand[/quote]Correct, it would appear to apply to anyone acting as an intermediary ("the office").

I put the question to my accountant who retired from the Army with a string of letters behind his name proving he's a highly-qualified accountant and he says
"This is the purpose of the proposed changes:
'The purpose of the proposed new rules remains to remove opportunities for the avoidance of tax and Class 1 National Insurance Contributions (NICs) by the use of intermediaries, such as service companies or partnerships, in circumstances where an individual worker would otherwise be an employee of the client or the income would be income from an office held by the worker.'

It is an obvious anti NI and tax avoidance. Such things have been going on since Henry VIII's reign when the Statute of Uses was introduced as a method of ensuring that the King got his fees on inheritances etc. It didn't work either![/quote][/quote]
So every driver basically becomes an employee, and can get the min wage and all other benefits associated with being an employee, I just wonder if it was brought in to save on tax credits?????? as well

How do you interpret the situation regarding an office sending drivers for "normal" work like pick up from ASDA and take home?[/quote]

If the office sends any driver hackney or PH regardless of if that driver owns there vehicle they are now employees, and it doesn't need to be an actual physical office, it could also apply to those that work car to car, I informed quite a few drivers of this new rule today and as usual most buried there heads in the sand[/quote]Correct, it would appear to apply to anyone acting as an intermediary ("the office").

I put the question to my accountant who retired from the Army with a string of letters behind his name proving he's a highly-qualified accountant and he says
"This is the purpose of the proposed changes:
'The purpose of the proposed new rules remains to remove opportunities for the avoidance of tax and Class 1 National Insurance Contributions (NICs) by the use of intermediaries, such as service companies or partnerships, in circumstances where an individual worker would otherwise be an employee of the client or the income would be income from an office held by the worker.'

It is an obvious anti NI and tax avoidance. Such things have been going on since Henry VIII's reign when the Statute of Uses was introduced as a method of ensuring that the King got his fees on inheritances etc. It didn't work either![/quote]

So every driver becomes an employee saving on tax credits also

It certainly looks like some people will be getting a visit from HMRC. I wonder who will be first?

_________________
Grandad,

I'm far from convinced they have any staff left to visit anywhere.

_________________
IDFIMH

KAPLA Limited is a payment solutions provider. They aim to supply you with the most tax-efficient way of paying your workers and drivers you use, whether by maintaining their self-employed status in construction with KAPLA CIS, providing PAYE benefits with KAPLA Umbrella, or using there specialist ground transport service KAPLA Drive.

Does anyone have a "bottom line" on this?

I have never had a contract, I never want one (I think). I have "subbed" when requested by colleagues. If I am a Sub, do I have to be paid as an employee and have my NI paid for a one off?

Are Companies, be they Taxi or Private Hire, going to be precluded from bidding because they will not be competitive with the single Hackney Driver. I say Hackney as I further presume that Private Hire Drivers are precluded by virtue of having to have an operator.

Even if a Private Hire Driver is his own operator, is he forced to pay himself as an employee and the resultant Class 1 National Insurance?

Seems to me a Hackney Driver can bid for a contract if he or she wants and always undercut the Companies.

Or have I got it all completely wrong.

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related

I have employed staff and I win my fair share of Council contracts and I don't quote cheap.

_________________
Grandad,

Gary Barlow ?

I understand that, but if this is correct on the Finance Act, will you have to raise your bid for the contract to cover minimum wage and NI contributions. If I was an independent Hackney Driver in your manor, could I undercut your bid with ease, as I can avoid at least the NI element?

In a subsidiary enquiry, could LA's find themselves with no bidders at all if the Driver (or Company) have to pay the escorts and the NI? It is not just the expense, it is the pain in the ar5e of all the paperwork surely.

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related

I already pay over the minimum wage. If, as in my case, the drivers are part time and they don't work enough hours then there is no national insurance. Don't forget that employers now get the first £2,000 of national insurance back. We are unlikely to have to pay any employers national insurance this year.

_________________
Grandad,

Kapla is run be one Gary Jacobs of Drivertax. quite an astute mover hes been involved in this sort of operation for construction workers for some years now, very successfully,as to any new regulations you can rest assured he will be on the ball regarding it. You are currently guessing about it, why not consult the man and see if he will write up apiece for this site? I am sure he would be willing.

Sussex might be correct in his comment that this govt have actually sacked most tax collectors anyway, dosnt appear anywhere near the top of their agenda to me

_________________
All posts by this contributor are made in a strictly personal capacity

I AM PROUD TO BE A CITIZEN NOBODY'S SUBJECT http://www.republic.org.u

F88K EM ALL WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND

BOOZE BOOZE BOOZE